Harvard Radical (A shift to the right at Harvard?)

NY Times Magazine ^ | 24 August 2003 | JAMES TRAUB

[dennisw]

25 out of 54 are neo-marxists meaning post-colonialist studies, critical theory, queer studies, gender studies, hard core feminism ....

[Torie]

The only aspect of freakishness really that I can discern, is the hopelessly narrow specializations. My nephew is off and running for a doctorate in English in some field that is so esoteric, that I cannot even begin to describe it, but it is something about desconstructionist fantasy motifs. But then, that is how the Great Universities operate these days. There is a case to be made that that might not by wholly appropriate in the humanities, where by definition, a very broad based understanding needs be applied to the particular, in order to give some context and meaning (my nephew thought Singapore and the Malay Peninsula was near Korea; I'm not kidding). To a lessor extent, that is also true of the social sciences.

[Torie]

My smile tends to suck actually. It is a close call as to whether to go for it or not in a pic.

[LS]

What's even more stunning is that thanks to the Ohio legislature, high school teachers DO have to teach content, and therefore to accredit our teachers, we have to teach THEM content. They passed with flying colors, proving that in fact they could master "content," and that we can teach it, when we decide to do so.

Realize, my teaching WILL NOT CHANGE, and my students WILL learn about Napoleon, the Declaration of Independence, the Franco-Prussian War, Hitler, and the Cold War.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I'm not sure my smile methodology is good at indicating ideological leaning. I just checked the faculty photos of my former grad school, and 13 of 16 were smiling, including all the Marxists. Actually my favorite prof was one of the 3 who didn't, but he was always a little absent-minded. However I did find all but one of those 16 to be very bright, accessible, and quite helpful.

[x]

Love it or hate it, the list looks pretty typical of a college English department. From gender studies to post-colonialism, it's all been embalmed in academic jargon for quite some time.

Ph.D. programs have digested and dissected and processed so much over time, that they need to take on some strange topics and approaches just to give each other something to be excited about. So where some see ideological penetration, it's also possible to discover a profession thrashing around to justify itself and generate interest in the profession (indeed, literally in the profession, as outsiders have little interest).

Harvard is giving more jobs to actual (and successful) writers than to academics, though -- a sign of a more commercial, "superstar" approach, or of the declining appeal and relevance of the purely academic in academia. Is it an attempt to bring the best writer-teachers to the best students or a particularly market-oriented and mercenary way of justifying the expense of a Harvard degree in creating the best connections for those already quite privileged? You decide.

It is freakish or cheesy of Woods or someone else to pad his resume by working his elite prep school into his credentials. I don't think Eton actually gives degrees, but it looks better than some pokey comprehensive school.

But it's not clear why, when Harvard or some similar institution says, "Boo!" the rest of the world has to jump. Maybe ignoring them, or giving the space and time to some other institution, is the best response.

[okie01]

They passed with flying colors, proving that in fact they could master "content," and that we can teach it, when we decide to do so.

Realize, my teaching WILL NOT CHANGE, and my students WILL learn about Napoleon, the Declaration of Independence, the Franco-Prussian War, Hitler, and the Cold War.

I simply cannot conceive of teaching -- or learning -- without the benefit of content. History, in particular.

History is a wonderful, exciting discipline. There is so much truly thrilling material, so many magnificent insights, to be discovered. History is, by definition, composed of mankind's greatest stories.

Why, oh why, would a faculty want to deprive students of these experiences? I just don't get it.

Plainly, you don't either...

[Torie]

Yep it is mostly for the benefit of EACH OTHER in the Ivory Tower in some disciplines more than others. Students are mere baggage, as is the production of anything that of real substantive interest. Tom Wolfe once observed that some of the classical music works of music professors were only listened to by their graduate students, who were a captive audience. Have you listened to any Easley Blackwood compositions lately (actually quite a nice guy, I once met him, and rather conservative, but whatever)?

[Diddle E. Squat]

A good lawyer never commits until he has to, right? :^)

[Torie]

Yep, but when I do, I do. When it comes to school vouchers, I sound almost like a bible thumper, with a passion that evokes the same. When one has a phobia to commit, when one does, it tends to be a very firm one indeed, given all the hurdles of intellectual doubt to cross. Granted, some other issues for me are it that category too, including taking down the most eggregiously evil on this planet where one can. America has the wealth to do that, and should endeavor to do that, to the extent reasonably prudent and feasible. This blessed land of ours can pay some dividends to the planet, and should.

[Diddle E. Squat]

One of the most frustrating experiences for me was watching a friend fail in his efforts to get a school voucher bill passed in PA a few years ago. The reason it failed? Republican reps from conservative suburban districts(including the fairly religious Hbg/York/Lancaster areas) refused to support it, because too many didn't want their money going towards("wasted in") the inner city.

[stripes1776]

it describes a change in emphasis that is sure to drive academia back from the liberal, post-modern brink to an inductively based curriculum and purpose.

If your are studying mathematics or one of the physical sciences, you already have this curriculum. How does making everybody study genetics correct the corruption of the humanites over the past 50 years.?

[Valin]

Well why would any college graduate want or for that matter need to know anything about western civ.? Much better to study 15th century east african lit.
Now there's's something that can really help a student truly understand the modern world.

[stripes1776]

...who voted 15-1 to change the "Western Civ" requirement to a "global studies" requirement

When I went to school, we had a requirement of two semesters of Western Civ. When I visited the school last year, I was surprised to find they had dropped this requirement for two semesters in cultural studies--a hodgepodge of ethinic studies. The collapse of the Western Civ curriculum seems to be complete now at most colleges.

[mlmr]

NO, I think this is of great interest and is an indication of a long overdue seachange.

[LS]

Yep. Not only that, but they way this dynamic is unfolding, I predict that we will not even require a U.S. history SURVEY for our history MAJORS within two years!

[stripes1776]

I predict that we will not even require a U.S. history SURVEY for our history MAJORS within two years!

This raises the question, Why is there such self-hatred among academics in America for their culture, Western Civilization, and for their country, the United States? Surely they must have some explanation for what they are doing besides "everybody else is doing it." Or is that as deep as thought goes these days in academia?

[LS]

It goes much deeper than that. Virtually all of these people are extreme liberals (some are ardent socialists). I think there are three things happening:

1) self-selection. Most conservatives choose to make money, build things, and actually DO something rather than teach, and to do intellectual pursuits in their leisure. Fine, but we need people on the front line. Getting through liberal graduate schools is not impossible: I did it, so have others. It requires that you be as "wise as a serpent and as gentle as a lamb," but conservatives can do it.

2) since the vast majority have already self-selected, and are therefore liberals, they reinforce each other's "scholarship" with more like-minded pap. Part of reassuring themselves that they are intellectual is to be well-traveled, and thus to want to not give offense to the French, or the Arabs, or whoever. Thus, they almost always take their side over ours.

3) philosophically, their liberal/socialist tendencies spin them toward "multinationalism," the UN, "peace," and other such nonsense. Thus all of American history, and the history of the West, has more or less been an impediment to where "history should go."

I know it's tough for non-academics to get scholarly articles, but for anyone interested in this mindset, Robert J. Loewenber published a brilliant piece 25 years ago called "Value-Free vs. Value-Laden History: A Distinction Without a Difference." (Historian, May 1976). If you can get your hands on that, it explains methodologically why these people are doomed to go in the directions they do, just by the methodology of how they DO HISTORY.